Yesterday he ambushed a small group of students from the non-profit SustainUS inside the Bella centre. One of them texted her friends for help. Several arrived, including Ben Wessel, a 20-year-old activist from Middlebury College, Vermont.

Monckton then repeatedly called them “Nazis” and “Hitler Youth”. When Wessel told him that his family were Jewish, Monckton carried on.

“I was so surprised,” Wessel said today. “I hoped to have a more civil conversation with the man. It’s fine that we have differences, but it’s not okay to pull out such hateful language.”

Ironically enough, Britain’s nearest thing to a genuine Nazi politician is in Copenhagen at this very moment - Nick Griffin of the British National Party. And strangely - or not so strangely - his views on climate science exactly coincide with those of Lord Monckton (‘fraudulent ststistics’, climate change ‘being used to impose an anti-human utopia’, etc.).

Nick Griffin also has a crimiinal conviction for inciting race hatred and is on record as saying “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat.”

Dr. Monckton is riding high right now my friends. Dr. Monckton was awarded the Nobel Laureate for finding an error in the 2001 IPCC report and the desmoggers cried. Dr. Monckton, still tippin’ with the paint drippin’!

Well, Moncton hasn’t joined the BNP which seems his natural habitat. He has just announced that he is joining the UK Independence Party, a party described by Monbiot as “the last refuge of a marvellous collection of cranks and fabulists”.

Monbiot also quoted a description of Moncton by a scribe of the (conservative and anti-environmental) British weekly The Spectator: “swivel-eyed maniac”. Bull’s eye.

I have noticed a striking resemblence to the late, great Marty Feldman …

I am also beginning to think that if we just stand back and give him room, this loose cannon might just roll right off the deck and into the (ever-rising) sea! As a friend said lately, this guy has shot himself in the foot so many times it’s amazing he can stand at all. Fern

I am impressed by McIntyre, he jokes that Professor Weaver figured there was a teleconnection between the KGB and oil companies, and stole his computer. The actual heist was done by none other than Macavity of CATS fame:

Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity
He’s broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity …

certainly diminishes himself in my eyes by continuing on this tactic, but their is no traction or lasting damage as the analogy fits. Denying opposing parties basic democratic rights by shouting them down during meetings, going around calling people “deniers” and trying to force the AGW opinion down everyones throats without debate is certainly not democratic. Combines with the enormous scientific deception Monckton has every grounds to make this comparison but he should refrain from doing so.

I want to see the Lord Monckton who uses Reason and Logic to bludgen his opponents, not bring hiself down to their level by hurling insults. The AGW is on the ropes and its weak points are a bogus scientific consensus, junk science and no evidence of warming. Time for monkcton to stop attacking the people and to start hitting the issue again. That is his strong suit. Their is no need for climate skeptics to reduce themselves to the religious zealots who shout “denier”.

I’m not a big fan, personally, of shouting people down and interrupting meetings. But I make an exception in this case as the exact same tactic has been promoted by the group hosting the meeting that was interrupted.

Americans for Prosperity is funded by fossil fuel companies and others and promoted harassment, interruption and heckling at Congressional Town Hall meetings in the US in fall, 2009.

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200908060005

Americans For Prosperity Is “Deeply Involved” In Protests. As reported by the Boston Globe, “Conservative activist groups are deeply involved. A leading example is Americans for Prosperity, whose sister foundation is chaired by David H. Koch - a billionaire whose family made a fortune in oil production and whom Forbes magazine in March ranked as the world’s 19th richest person - and which also coordinated the ‘tea parties’ in April protesting Obama’s ‘irresponsible’ economic policies. The groups are running millions of dollars of television ads and have sent a bus across America to stir up sentiment against revamping healthcare. Its website lists town hall meetings planned by Democratic lawmakers to help activists find a venue for protest.”
- Boston Globe

There was a more detailed account of AFP distributing a guide to disrupting Town Hall meetings.

The aristocrat Monckton should also criticize Americans for Prosperity or he should STFU.

‘Last night, Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI) and Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) were apparently the latest victims of this strategy. Kagen, whose town hall was targeted by the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity, was “repeatedly disrupted” by “incomprehensible” shrieks and shouts from angry conservatives. ‘

Sadly, it has been effective for the teabaggers, to some extent. The Republican Party is really catering to them. The health care bill has been compromised and climate action has been delayed. Big business has been served.

Maybe next time the kids should hold up signs showing the Viscount’s lies. Surround him with these signs.

I suggest that everyone be allowed to have their meeting without fear of being shut down by protest. It won’t happen because of the self righteous groups out there who place themselves above everyone else.

So, let me get this straight, a reporter is marched off by armed guards for asking a difficult question in a Pro AGW press conference and yet a gang of moronic chanting “climate activists” (neo-Nazi Thugs) can invade a private meeting and disrupt it and nobody does anything to get rid of them? This is a very very scary world we are inhabiting.

Schneider was right to stop answering their questions as it is well known that ‘Climatgate’ has turned into ‘Vapourgate’ - nothing for the deniers to grasp firmly. Although that has not stopped Monckton dissembling about Trenberth’s statements in private - a direct and mischievous reference to the leaked emails. Monckton should be slapped with a libel suite on that alone, he cannot be that stupid not to know that the real meaning of Trenberth’s ‘decline’ allusion has been made clear and is no ‘smoking gun’.

You may not know that Schnieder was once mischievously misquoted by another ‘reporter’ a few years back and realised how he would likely be mistreated once again.

Besides this was a book launch and not an open session for any questions.

As for ‘Not Evil - Just Wrong’ - should have a similar classification as ‘Expelled’, I have a hunch that you may be familiar with that baloney, i.e. taken with a large pinch of salt (or reality).

Ultimately they are responsible for the running of government agencies. When the GISS data base is fraudulently “adjusted” to create an illusion of “we are in the ten warmest years”, then the White House is on the hook.

- the emails were stolen
- the emails were selectively released
- deniers don’t know what was withheld.
- deniers don’t have the full picture.
- deniers insist this is the end of the global warming debate

OTOH, deniers tell us to reject thousands of scientists around the world who have reached the same conclusion: that human-induced global warming is happening.

Oh, and the deniers have nothing critic to say whatsoever about the actual thievery that took place. They apparently no problem with larceny - by their side.

“For starters, very few, if any, scientists contend that the beginning of the Industrial Revolution sparked a nearly instantaneous rise in temperatures. The rise in temperatures that most of the CRU scientists and most mainstream scientists consider to be non-normal is the one that began in 1975 and ended in 1998.

This is an important point, because although we did in fact start warming in approximately the year 1800, meaningful rises in co2 would not occur for nearly a century and a half. Why did we begin warming in 1800? One answer is that it was time for the pendulum to swing back toward warm after the 550-year period known as the Little Ice Age. Internal dynamics and possibly solar variability likely brought our ocean-atmosphere system both into and out of the LIA.

The arguments about what falls within “normal,” temperature-wise and climate-wise, will continue for some time, largely because of reasonable disputes concerning tree-ring analysis. The tree-ring analysis that Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia all depend on to show the Modern Warm Period as troublingly pronounced is fraught with issues. Tree rings simply cannot be read with the omniscience they would require to provide a true record of temperature. Why not? Because individual trees growth is affected by too many variables: changing soil composition, changing numbers, of competitor trees in a stand, changing precipitation, changing levels of cloud, nearby volcanic eruptions (especially pertinent in Siberia from which many of the most significant tree-ring studies are drawn). This is only a partial list!”

Acting on agw concerns “just in case” makes sense to me on one condition. That is: that precaution moves us to fully develop advanced nuclear in India, China and all stable countries that have limited nuclear facilities now.

If burning fossil fuels must be arrested, we must go to nuclear in a very big way along with added in renewables like solar baseload and wind and wave.

If we aren’t willing to fully develop advanced nuclear in stable countries where some nuclear exists now, then we aren’t serious about climate. If that is the case it’s all just a power grab and should be cut off at the knees.

A particularly apt juxtaposition, posting a precautionary principle piece on a Monckton thread. Monckton himself being known well known for his truly visionary application of the precautionary principle;

“…. there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently. “

Siberian tree data is not scientifically sound and I can show this. I’ll work from JR’s excellent list and then add one more.
Changing soil composition, hello haven’t you guys herd of plate teutonics? Periodically all the old soil gets buried under the ocean.
Changing numbers of competitor trees, again, obvious, lumberjacks come in and cut down the old trees.
Changing precipitation, I disagree with this one you can tell if it is raining because the trees are wet.
Changing levels of cloud, again true how can you tell if it is cloudy by looking at a tree?
Nearby volcanic eruptions, Siberia is in the frozen north which is a hellish place of fire and brimstone.

But most importantly most of the trees in siberia have been dead for a century. During the October resolution a communist B52 crashed and the atom bomb it was carrying exploded killing all the trees. http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/tunguska.html This happened at Tunguska and nearly destroyed NY and Washington.

‘But most importantly most of the trees in siberia have been dead for a century. During the October resolution a communist B52 crashed and the atom bomb it was carrying exploded killing all the trees. http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/tunguska.html This happened at Tunguska and nearly destroyed NY and Washington.’

As much as I hate to say it, the youth in this video do not come out on top. Monckton manages to totally control the interaction. Climate activists desperately need to practice debating people like this. Too often they come across as poorly informed, overly emotional and reactive.

There is an easy answer to Monckton’s claim that temperatures have declined in the last 15 years. Why didn’t they immediately counter with hard numbers about GHG levels in the atmosphere? Even a simple statement about how very short-term cooling is not evidence against long-term warming would have sufficed to take some of the wind out of his argument.

If there is one thing I agree with Monckton on, shouting down a meeting is not the best tactic. They would have been better off staging a silent stand-in holding simple, legible signs which provide hard evidence of GHG levels, long-term warming, the true cost of action (1-3% of global GDP vs the 5% we just spent to bail out the banking industry), who funds people like Monckton and Lomborg, etc.

Remember, this is about winning over the people watching these videos, not converting Monckton.

Perhaps somebody could make an edit of this video with overlays of the real facts as Monckton spouts off? It would help viewers discern.

I would have to compare it to the geological record and see if the current retreating of the 50 measured glaciers (out of 3000) are indeed melting beyond normal variation. But it seems no one here can show us they are melting beyond normal variation.

Of course glacier and polar ice is being lost beyond normal variation because no other factors other than the current isotopically distinct elevated CO2 levels can account for the temperature rises, rises which are around 4 degree C above normal at polar latitudes.

‘Neverthless, the simple reason why there is no “conclusive evidence” to show that the Himalayan glaciers are melting is because India had repeatedly turned down requests from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), for an exhaustive study of the Himalayan glaciers

The Indian government, which treats glacier studies only for defence purposes, did not see any major threat from the melting of glaciers and the formation of the newly created lakes. Perhaps India is waiting for another disaster to strike before it acknowledges the threat. Jairam Ramesh should realise that deflecting attention from the urgent need to do something more meaningful for protecting the Himalayan glaciers will be disastrous for the country’s environment and food security.

I draw your attention to a Himalayan disaster in waiting. This is based on a detailed report prepared by ICIMOD sometimes back.

It happened on Aug 4, 1985. Dig Tsho glacial lake, situated close to the Mt Everest region at a height of 4,365 metres above sea level, suddenly burst. Within the next four hours, estimates show that nearly 8 million cubic metres of water had drained from the lake. The torrent moved forward rather slowly down-valley as a huge ‘black’ mass of water full of debris. The surge waters from what is called as ‘Glacial Lake Outburst Floods’ (GLOF), completely destroyed whatever came its way.

Within the next few hours, the GLOF had completely destroyed civil structures of Namche (Thame) Small Hydel Project (estimated cost of US $ 1.5 million), swept 14 bridges, long stretches of roads, trails, cultivated land and took a heavy toll of human and animal life.’

All these ‘elephants’ charging across the globe and you still don’t get it.

Unless you do some more widespread reading, based upon honest and open-minded enquiry, there is little point in discussing with you further.

If you behaved like this during an accredited course you would soon find yourself looking for other options. Media Studies perhaps.

Good for you for at least trying to use science to back up your position, but you grossly misinterpret these essays. I have now read them all except the last one and none actually back up your argument that there is “nothing happening with the glaciers that is beyond normal variation.”

The first essay you cite (Chaujar, 2009) deals exclusively with dating the advance and retreat of the Himalayan glaciers. It says absolutely nothing about whether the current retreat is natural or human induced. To use this paper as evidence that glacial retreat is a natural process is reading more into it than the author is actually saying.

The second essay by Fowler and Archer (2006) is the one that makes me laugh the hardest and question if you have actually read it. Let me quote from it:

“High northern latitudes have been particularly affected, with reconstructions of mean surface temperature over the past two millennia suggesting that the late twentieth century warmth is unprecedented (Mann and Jones 2003) and attributed to the anthropogenic forcing of climate (Thorne et al. 2003).” … “However, there are suggestions that the western Himalaya region is showing a different response to global warming…”

This essay is basically agreeing that climate change is being caused by humans and pointing out that changes in temperature patterns are asymmetrical and differ from region to region.

The third essay by Kononov, Ananicheva and Willis (2005) is much like the first in that it attempts to reconstruct the growth and decline of the Polar Ural glacier without making any comment on whether the recent observed shrinkage is human or natural. Again, you read more into it that it actually says.

There is no doubt that the world has undergone warming and cooling periods but that alone does not prove that the current warming trend is natural. People die from natural causes all the time but you cannot then say that all deaths are natural. Your argument also fails to take into account the simple fact that greenhouse gases (which are proven to trap heat) are at levels unprecedented for at least 800,000 years.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.